|
September 29, 2003
So many associations, so little time
The interaction design folk have released the results of their first survey to gauge the needs of their membership. I'm peripherally following this, as I'm still interested in the big picture that might unite all these separate specific organizations. Anyways, questions like "Do you feel there is a need for a new professional home for interaction designers either within an existing organization or as a new stand alone organization?" got the responses you'd expect. Lots of folks who wanted a new home and lots of folks who wanted to work with an existing organization (particularly since it is very pricy to belong to a bunch). Here's the breakdown of organizations that survey respondents belonged to: Slightly more interesting was the relative proportion of AIfIA members to SIGCHI members. I'm surprised there were so many more of the latter compared to the former. I'm not sure if there is really that big of a difference between your garden variety interaction designer and your West Coast information architect. Alas, labels come back to haunt again. Since the hard-core HCI-oriented interaction designers have so little in common with the polar bear-oriented information architects, trying to find a middle ground would seem challenging. There may be more hope for a collaboration with the UPA folks, especially if UPA and SIGCHI might join forces on providing a place for these folks--each bringing their own assets to the partnership.
Comments
While I have been a strong proponent for the interaction design folks working with (or being a part of) UPA, I no longer believe so. I immediately contacted the UPA officers after Tog first proposed the new group. The UPA officers responded only after I repeatedly contacted them, in which they promised a public response. So far have failed to respond in any way that I'm aware. I've given up on them. On a good note, there has been a very positive response from prominent SIGCHI leaders. They're obviously interested and willing to find a workable solution that includes ACM backing. -- Posted by Ron Zeno on October 1, 2003 03:51 PMI can't speak officially for UPA; I can only speak for the UPA conference, since I'm co-chair. And for myself, of course.... The choice between a new organization and finding a home in an existing organization has many dimensions. I would suggest starting within an existing organization, for the simple reason that starting something new is a huge amount of work; it will take a lot of time, people, and money to get the payback that you're looking for. In the long run, maybe that's your answer, but in the short run, you may find it more useful to gather your critical mass of community within a larger context. Then, maybe, diverge, if there's a need for it. It has happened before. There is also the question of focus, and focus can change over time, based on both the evolution of a field and also the people who make up an organization. UPA started with a focus on testing, but our focus has broadened over the years. Are we trying to be too many things? I don't think so; my perspective is that we're addressing an area that's both interdisciplinary and also too large for a single discipline. That includes testing, but it also includes interaction design, as well as visual design, requirements collection, technical communications, many aspects of psychology and sociology, as well as business and management issues. Yes, it is big, but the hard problems tend to fall in the gaps between disciplines anyway. Bridging those gaps and finding connections is a big part of what professional societies are about. No organization is going to cover every aspect of user experience equally well. Instead, what you get tends to reflect the interests of the people who are active. That implies a significant amount of grassroots work as well as leadership; UPA depends on the people who care enough to bring both their successes and their problems to us. Do you want to see interaction design at UPA? Then submit your current work, as a presentation, a poster, a workshop, or whatever is approrpiate, to the conference. Please. Ask your friends to do the same. Please. We're looking forward to it! (And submissions are open now, hint, hint.) After the first year or two, what you get out of any organization is a function of what you put into it. The UPA 2004 theme is "connecting communities." We can apply that to ourselves and our professions, as well as to our customers and our users. -- Posted by on October 1, 2003 07:56 PM
Post a comment
Note: Your comment will be reviewed prior to posting to minimize comment spam. Management regrets the inconvenience!
|
IDblog is Beth Mazur tilting at power law windmills. A little bit Internet, a little bit technology, a little bit society, and a lot about designing useful information products. Send your cards and letters to .
search this site
archives
August 2004
July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 October 2002 September 2002
categories
blogs and wikis
business and design content and writing design process education experience design hci information architecture information design marketing and brands multimedia & broadband politics search society & technology usability visual design web design wifi words can't describe
key links
STC Information Design SIG
boxes and arrows iawiki information design journal informationdesign.org infodesign usability sig usable web
groups
aiga experience design
a(o).i.r asilomar institute for information architecture asis&t sigchi society for technical communication usability professionals association
about moi
feeds
gratuitous right-nav promos
|
